supreme court

Supreme Court Rejects “Singular Form” Argument, Backs Joint Applications For Rights Enforcement

The Supreme Court has finally settled the long, confusing debates on whether a joint application for enforcement of fundamental rights can be instituted and maintained in Nigerian courts.

Prior, the argument was that the operative word used in Section 46(1) of the Constitution is “person” which is in singular form. Similarly, the proponent of this school of thought argued that by Order 1 Rule 2 and Order 2 Rules 2 and 3 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, the words used therein are ‘any person’, ‘applicant’ and ‘application’ which are in singular form.

Consequently, it follows that fundamental rights suit must be filed separately by individual applicants and that one fundamental right action cannot be filed by joint applicants. Curiously, this position was given judicial imprimatur by the Court of Appeal in the following line of cases: Finamedia Global Services Ltd Vs Onwero Nigeria Limited (2020) LPELR 51149(CA), Chief of Naval Staff & Ors Vs Archibong & Ors (2020) LPELR 51845(CA) and Abuja Electricity Distribution Company Plc & Ors Vs Akaliro & Ors (2021) LPELR 54212(CA).

Interestingly, there is a second school of thought that postulated that regardless of the singular nature of the phrase “any person” as used in Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution and other singular words used in the FREP Rules, it can be interpreted to mean multiple persons. This is supported by provisions of Section 14(b) of the Interpretation Act, which provides that “in an enactment, words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.”

In short, they argue that a joint application for fundamental rights enforcement is permissible in so far as the cause of action of the applicants are similar or the same. And this position was upheld by the Court of Appeal in the following cases: Government of Enugu State Vs Onya (2021) LPELR-52688(CA), Incorporated Trustees of Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative & Ors Vs National Identity Management Commission (2021) LPELR 55623(CA), and Nuwawan & Ors Vs Inspector General of Police(2023) LPELR 61580(CA).

The obviously conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal in the above cases caused confusion and uncertainties for litigants, lawyers, and trial judges.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court, in its recent decision in Total Exploration & Production (NIG) Limited v. Okwu & Ors (2024) LPELR-62623(SC), had the opportunity to consider the debate and held that joint application for fundamental rights enforcement is permissible and maintainable, in so far as “the applicants share the same cause of action or share a common interest”.

Specifically, the Apex Court held that Court of Appeal decisions in the line of Abuja Electricity Distribution Company Plc & Ors Vs Akaliro & Ors (Supra) “do not represent good law”.

This is, without doubt, a landmark decision that will positively impact our human rights jurisprudence in Nigeria and firmly establish that the era of barren technicality is long gone and our courts are now leaning towards doing substantial justice to cases.